Time: Tue Oct 29 17:15:06 1996 To: EBRyans <ebryan19@fellini.syr.vcomm.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: ComLaw> Fwd: piml] IRS defeated in court? Cc: Bcc: This is VERY old news. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:28 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote: >Forwarded message: > >>From: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV> >>To: C-NEWS All <c-news@world.std.com>, "'piml'" <piml@mars.galstar.com> >>Subject: piml] IRS defeated in court? >>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 13:31:00 EST >> >> >>Nothing in the following is meant to be any sort of legal advice. >>Consult your lawyer. Use no hooks. Avoid heavy machinery. >> >>From: GREG MCNEIL >>Subj: US V Long Proof of no inc >>Conf: Flat_TAX (1308) Read: No Status: Public >> >> --------------------------------------- >>MAN FREED ON TAX CHARGES by Bill Keller >> --------------------------------------- >> >>This article is, of itself almost as remarkable as its subject. More than >>mere "patriot" theory, this article outlines a successful step-by-step >>strategy that defeated the IRS in court. The article lists the first case >>the defense use, and the argument that case proved. Then it lists the >>second case and second argument, and the third, etc. In sum, the article >>lists a logical chain of arguments that build on each other to persuade a >>jury that 1) Wages are not taxable income; 2) The IRS cannot tax a man's >>right to work for wages; and 3) Mr. Lloyd Long was not obligated to file >>or pay income taxes. The article contains information on how to order a >>complete court transcript of the Long case that can fill in the gaps that >>necessarily exist in the following >>brief outline. >> >>Of course, just because the strategy worked in one particular case before >>one particular jury, does not mean it will work in every case before >>every jury. Nevertheless, what has worked before, could work again, and >>at minimum, offers a preliminary how-to-do-it manual for locking horns >>with the IRS in court. >> >>begin: >> >>In an amazing court case involving the "income tax", a Chattanooga jury >>agreed with the argument by the defendant that the "income tax" is >>actually an EXCISE TAX and applied only to certain classes of people (US >>v. Long, Eastern District of Tennessee, CR 19391, October 15, 1993) >> >>Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, >>assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended >>Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee who was charged by the IRS with >>willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1989 and 1990. >> >>In presenting the case for the IRS, assistant US Attorney Curtis Collier, >>assisted by IRS special agent Michael Geasley, declared that Mr. Long had >>gross income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years 1989 and 1990, >>and that he had "willfully" failed to file income tax returns for those >>years as "required by law". >> >>The defense admitted that Mr. Long did in fact have income in excess of >>$49,000 for each of the years in question, and that he did not file a >>return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt >>that he was not "liable" for an income tax, not was he "required by law" >>to file. >> >>Defense testimony presented a case entitled Brushhaber v Union Pacific >>Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court >>that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax >>any new subjects: it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax >>was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax >>on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. >> >>The defense then brought a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy, wherein an >>excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and >>consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue >>certain >>occupations and upon corporate privileges. >> >>Mr. Long's attorney also brought out a case entitles Simms v. Ahrens, >>wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax >>nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax. >> >>The defense then brought up a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein >>the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be >>taxed for the mere privilege if existing, but that the individual's right >>to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot >>be imposed. Defense also noted studies done by the congressional research >>service showing the INCOME TAX to be an EXCISE TAX. >> >>Next the defense noted that in a Tennessee Supreme Court case Jack Cole >>v. Commissioner, the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to >>INCOME or EARNINGS, and that this right could not be taxed as a >>privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case, Corn v. For, the >>court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as >>partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and >>antecedent of the government. The prosecution did not >>challenge or attempt to refute any of the cases cited, or the conclusions >>of the courts. >> >>> TAKE NOTE ..This section >> >>Defense brought out in testimony that the fact nowhere in the entire IRS >>Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax! The IRS's own >>privacy act notice cites only three sections, and none of these sections >>makes anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an >>oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no >>one could misinterpret who was made liable for the alcohol tax. >> >>Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the >>income tax relied upon "voluntary compliance" and a statement from the >>head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which in essence >>showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol >>tax, which is 100% enforced. >> >>Mr. Long stated in 1988 he knew that; the income tax was in fact an >>excise tax; that he as not enjoying any corporate privileges nor engaged >>in any privileged occupation; that income or earning from the exercise of >>common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; that nowwhere >>in the IRS >>Code was he made liable for the tax and the income tax was voluntary. But >>Mr. Long was still so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his >>voluntary assessment. He then began a series of letters to the IRS >>explaining that he had >>no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He >>asked for direct answers to questions such as "Am I required to file >>federal income tax returns?" and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?" >>The IRS never gave a direct answer to any of his questions. Instead they >>inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and >>generally avoided answering. So Mr. Long testified that he decided to >>stop volunteering. >> >>The IRS brought in two "expert" witnesses. Both were actually IRS >>employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross >>examination by Mr. Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret >>code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, >>showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a >>return. Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point >>that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. The other witness, upon >>cross examination by Mr. Becraft, gave testimony that conflicted with the >>privacy act notice. >> >>The government also attempted to insinuate "guilt by association" by >>claiming Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable >>character. They argued that the writers of some of the books he read, and >>people he knew, had >>been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact >>criminals. >> >>Mr. Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a >>crime by a court did not invalidate everything he said. To illustrate his >>point, he pointed out that the Apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by >>the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles. He added that >>he, Mr. Long did not rely on anything that he did not personally check >>out thoroughly. In summation, Mr. Becraft reminded the jury that Galileo >>was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with what everyone >>else knew was a "fact"; and that Columbus, acting on a belief that >>conflicted with what everyone else knew was a "fact" discovered something >>no else thought existed. The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr. >>Long "NOT GUILTY" on all counts, they have ventured into uncharted >>territory in their monumental decision. A Chattanooga TV station quoted a >>government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS >>will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be >>less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in >>their favor. >> >>Lloyd Long >>5048 Roarks Cove Rd. >>Decherd, Tenn 37324 >>(615)967-1402 >> >>* No person is subject to taxation on his income who is not SPECIALLY >>* DESCRIBED in the statute imposting the tax or not clearly within the >>* meaning of the general terms which the statute employs. A statute is >>not >>* to be extended by -IMPLICATION- to make liable persons other than those >>* comprehended within its terms.. >>* 85 C.J.S. 1092 >> >> >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail